An economics, investment, trading and policy blog with a focus on Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). We seek the truth, avoid the mainstream and are virulently anti-neoliberalism.
- Drop the centralised money authority idea. The Greek debacle shows what happens when you take money decisions outside of parliament. Parliament decides what to spend in a Finance Bill and the Central Bank ponies up what the Treasury requires to implement the legislation as passed. The bureaucrats and ministers don't do anything with money without referring back to parliament.
- Drop the idea that sovereign money is in any way different or has any superior control points to the current insured system. It does not as I have shown in my posts, and as actually bankers are very well aware. If you implement it I and many others will make a small fortune blowing holes in it and it will fail Euro style. Because, systemically, it doesn't do what you think it does.
- Stop hiding the increased regressive costs hidden in the sovereign money idea. The banking system should be freely available to all in the same way that cash is - because we need it to get real transactions done. In an electronic era there is negligible extra cost for zillions of transactions over millions. Free banking should be provided by the state for the same reason cash is printed by the state.
- Realise that a centralised system is brittle and inflexible as much as a distributed system is inconsistent but responsive. They both have their downsides, but having the decisions close to the borrower is vital. Banking is already over centralised.
- You cannot control banks by price and by 'shareholder governance'. That is a neo-liberal wet dream. You control banks by proscribing precisely what they can and can't do.
The real issues that need discussing are what banks are allowed to do, and whether there is any value in them being privatised or not. Or whether they should be publicly owned for the same reason the judiciary is.
Another one of Neil's weird responses. He concludes in the last paragraph by saying what needs to be done is exactly what my article does: "The real issues that need discussing are what banks are allowed to do, and whether there is any value in them being privatised or not."
2 comments:
It boils down to this:
- Drop the centralised money authority idea. The Greek debacle shows what happens when you take money decisions outside of parliament. Parliament decides what to spend in a Finance Bill and the Central Bank ponies up what the Treasury requires to implement the legislation as passed. The bureaucrats and ministers don't do anything with money without referring back to parliament.
- Drop the idea that sovereign money is in any way different or has any superior control points to the current insured system. It does not as I have shown in my posts, and as actually bankers are very well aware. If you implement it I and many others will make a small fortune blowing holes in it and it will fail Euro style. Because, systemically, it doesn't do what you think it does.
- Stop hiding the increased regressive costs hidden in the sovereign money idea. The banking system should be freely available to all in the same way that cash is - because we need it to get real transactions done. In an electronic era there is negligible extra cost for zillions of transactions over millions. Free banking should be provided by the state for the same reason cash is printed by the state.
- Realise that a centralised system is brittle and inflexible as much as a distributed system is inconsistent but responsive. They both have their downsides, but having the decisions close to the borrower is vital. Banking is already over centralised.
- You cannot control banks by price and by 'shareholder governance'. That is a neo-liberal wet dream. You control banks by proscribing precisely what they can and can't do.
The real issues that need discussing are what banks are allowed to do, and whether there is any value in them being privatised or not. Or whether they should be publicly owned for the same reason the judiciary is.
Another one of Neil's weird responses. He concludes in the last paragraph by saying what needs to be done is exactly what my article does:
"The real issues that need discussing are what banks are allowed to do, and whether there is any value in them being privatised or not."
Post a Comment